Past LSAT Explained/PrepTest 27

Contents

(A)Freeman does not dispute the numerical figure but rather what it means.(B)Correct. Powell says private companies operate more cheaply because they are qualitatively better, but Freeman says it is because they pick and choose their clients.
(C)Tempting, but Powell never mentioned this reason, so they can't disagree about it.
(D)Out of the blue and beyond the scope.
(E)Again tempting, but not the core issue of disagreement between the two. Powell would say that private companies serve customers of all needs more cheaply because they are better, but Freeman would say they simply avoid high-cost customers.

The conclusion that 80% of people don't know enough is based on the fact that 80% of people don't understand DNA properly. Thus, the argument is: Knowing about DNA means you know enough to make good decisions.
(A)This actual helps the argument- it's not a flaw.
(B)Nothing said about collective decisions in the question.
(C)No causal relationship between these two in the question(D)Correct. This is the flaw noted above.
(E)Confusing because the numbers look promising, but it's adding and subtracting stats from different places.

Yasukawa concludes that size is a determinant of survival. However, the speaker disagrees, pointing out that size differences are likely caused by age.
(A)This is the opposite of what we need.
(B)This contradicts the prompt.
(C)This is backwards; it reverses the size-->survival relationship incorrectly.(D)Correct. The speaker points out that the "size" determinant for survival is probably actually age based, so in group the same age, size is no longer relevant.
(E)Random much?

(A)Correct. The issue here is size and age, not age among different species. This choice would be a misunderstanding. Remember that weaken questions often have information that seems outside they scope. For weaken questions, start with assuming truth in the answer choices and seeing how it affects the validity of the question.
(B)Irrelevant. Does not address size or age.
(C)Irrelevant.
(D)That would weaken his claim effectively, so it is NOT a misunderstanding.
(E)That would weaken his claim effectively, so it is NOT a misunderstanding.

(A)Unrelated to both Japan and the 1980's
(B)That might explain how people could afford the paintings, but nothing says that them having the money means they would use it to buy this specific kind of art.(C)Correct. Provides support for the assertion that there's a "specific preference...for certain aesthetic attributes".
(D)It think it's trying to say that they became cheaper in the 1980's, but this does not explain their popularity in Japan.
(E)This does support the argument's conclusion, which is that Japanese collectors prefer these specific paintings.

Anna analogizes cloudberries and cacao and demonstrates that increasing demand might actually take income out of the hands of gatherers and give it to farmers, thus invalidating Frankie's point.
(A)She never says that this would benefit everyone-quite the opposite, actually.
(B)Frankie doesn't present any evidence for her to reinterpret.(C)Correct. She compares the current cloudberry situation with the past cacao situation.
(D)Nope, the argument stays very specific.
(E)She's not comparing cloudberries and cacao as products, just their economic aspects.

Question Type: Resolve
Important thing to note:it is "most widely read magazines" that are in danger of failing, not magazines in general.

(A)That would explain the decrease in revenue but not the financially successful ones.
(B)Off topic(C)Correct. This explains why decreased ad revenue hurts only the most widely read mags and also explains how smaller mags are staying afloat.
(D)This does not explain they there are many financially successful mags. (E)Explains the number of successful magazines but not does not resolve the discrepancy.

(A)If owls do not eat red squirrels, the poison doesn't affect them. This HELPS the argument.(B)Rodents that will eat the poison will be eaten by owls, so the owls might be harmed too. This is counterproductive and highlights a weakness in the argument.
(C)Irrelevant. We only care about the owls.
(D)It still kills the trees and harms the owls. Supports the argument.
(E)This might save other small animals that could eat the poison, but we only care about saving OWLS.

Question Type: Inference/Resolve
The manager says that the total number of meals increased, but the accountant says individually each restaurant sold fewer. By simple math, there have to be some new restaurants.

(A)Correct. Just what we were looking for.
(B)This does not explain how they sold more meals.
(C)Since we're only talking about two internal sales figures, competition is irrelevant.
(D)That doesn't help- cheaper would explain the manager, pricier would explain the accountant, but price alone doesn't tell us how both could be right.
(E)Same as B.

Question Type: Weaken
The accountant's argument: The reason sales are down at all older restaurants is that desirability has decreased. We need another reason to answer WHY sales are down.

(A)New meals might have been either more or less desirable. This doesn't directly affect the argument.
(B)This says sales might be low, but it does not address WHY, which is what we need to weaken the argument.
(C)These must be new restaurants since we know all older ones did NOT increase sales. Thus, they are irrelevant.
(D)Since we're speaking of overall sales, the number of a certain type of meals is irrelevant.(E)Correct. This weakens the argument by supplanting the information that the accountant uses as a premise. Maybe desirability is the same (or better), but people don't have the money to spend on eating out.

Question Type:Parallel the Reasoning
First diagram the stimulus argument: X(pesticides) can cause Y(sterility). Now, Y has happened, so X is definitely causes Y. Now compare.

(A)Way too many elements- horses' tetanus frequency vs. other animals. Not parallel.(B)Correct. X(low calcium) can cause Y(fewer eggs). Now, Y has happened, so X must be the cause. Perfect! You can stop here, but in the support of thoroughness:
(C) If you are X(undernourished) you are likely to have Y(infection). Certain animals are NOT X, so they must not be Y. Nope.
(D) X(apes) are defined as having Y(thumbs) and Z(no tail). This fossil has Y, so it must be an example of X. Not parallel AND bad logic.
(E)X(track) is only caused by Y(bears). Since Y does not exist, X is not really X. Not parallel.

Question Type: Support
High temps make fibers go to their original states. Cotton fibers are naturally curly. Cotton clothes shrink when washed in hot water because their fibers curl up. Polyester clothes don't. So, you can figure out their fibers don't go curly, so their natural state must be straight.

(A)We don't know anything about fiber behavior at low temps. Nope.
(B)That doesn't make any sense, since the natural fibers will curl up whether they are part of the garment or all of it.
(C)This makes sense, since they're curly naturally, but it doesn't address most of the stimulus.
(D)This may be true, but we have no proof of that.(E)Correct. Exactly what we were looking for.

(A)We don't know that developed countries make the money by charging fines.
(B)We are discussing internal pollution problems, so other countries are irrelevant.(C)Correct. The stimulus says that industrial development improves pollution issues once it gets past the early stage, so we have to assume that the $5000 per capita is coming from industry if we want to use that as our solution. If we don't make this assumption, we could say that Country X is a leading gatherer of, say, cloudberries, and although their GDP might increase, it won't be due to industry and thus will not have a positive effect on pollution.
(D)There is another assumption that X has already begun development, so this doesn't work.
(E)It really doesn't matter what other countries are doing...we only have eyes for X.

Question Type: Structure
The critic's argument: Although popular theories don't explain the psyche, they have more success therapeutically than more scientific ones.

(A)There is no evidence give to disprove.(B)Correct.
(C)The prompt states that popular theories don't explain things, so this isn't it.
(D)The critic never says what he things is most important.
(E)Tempting, but no. They are powerful, but they do NOT have explanatory power, only therapeutic power.

Question type: Structure
Argument in a nutshell: Tony says that fewer anarchists are violent than other people, so anarchism and violence don't necessarily go together. Keisha says that the percentage of violent anarchists might be high because there are fewer of them than other folk.

(A)Correct, number vs. proportions is the issue here.
(B)Neither Keisha nor Tony ever offers any factual evidence. Nope.
(C)She does not argue that there are numerically few violent anarchists, so nope.
(D)She does not compare the groups qualitatively.
(E)She does not question what qualifies as an "anarchist".

Question Type: Strengthen
Argument: Recent research contradicts the classical theory by showing that sound change is gradual. Because the classical theory is wrong, we should toss out all sound-change theory. The key here is "sound theory in general" as opposed to "classical theory."

(A)That would support throwing out classical theory, but not ALL theory as the speaker argues.
(B)It doesn't matter if they're random; we're looking at gradual vs. sudden.
(C)Interesting, but "unpredictable ways" does not tell us anything about the focus of the argument (gradual vs. sudden).(D)Correct. This explains why we would need to throw out ALL sound change theory (because it's based on faulty info) instead of just the classical theory.
(E)Irrelevant. We apparently DO have some info on sound change, enough to spawn a bunch of theories.

Question Type: Structure
Argument: Laws to make a group happy can only be made if that group has stable goals, and since it is obvious that stable societies have laws that increase people's happiness, therefore stable society depends on its citizens having stable goals.

(A)The conclusion is "stable societies depend on citzens' stable goals." Nope.(B)Correct. It is one of the premises.
(C)It supports the argument, so it doesn't need to be refuted.
(D)It is a premise, not a consequence.
(E)There is no underlying principle stated, so no go.

Question Type: Strengthen
Conclusion: Motion sickness is caused when the inner ear and the eye send conflicting signals to the brain.

(A)Correct. In a windowless cabin, the room would look steady, but the ear would sense motion, so motion sickness is likely. This is an example to support the conclusion.
(B)How often you get motion sickness doesn't explain the cause.
(C)This weakens the conclusion, so no.
(D)This also weakens the conclusion.
(E)Some people being less susceptible does not address the cause of motion sickness.

Question Type: Inference
Facts: Allergens use histamine to cause symptoms, and antihistamines stop symptoms by blocking histamine and also do other things. Histamine has nothing to do with colds.

(A)No causal relationship between pollen and colds is mentioned either way.
(B)No evidence for relative seriousness.
(C)Too strong. Antihistamines could be GREAT for colds, they just don't do it by blocking histamine.
(D)Although antihistamines can cause drowsiness, we don't know that they effectively treat sleeplessness.(E)Correct. Since colds and histamine are unrelated, any good the meds do is unrelated to histamine blocking.

(A)Nowhere does the speaker claim this is an exhaustive list. Painting? Sculpture? Concerto? Nope.
(B)Blank verse could use a different musical aspect (such as meter) and still be a poem.(C)Correct. Since a poem is ANY piece of art that uses musical aspect, yes. The description of novels says they do not usually involve musical aspects, not that they can't, so this is not a contradiction.
(D)This is a contradiction since the question defines poems AS works of art. No such thing as nonartistic poetry, at least not in this question.
(E)The whole definition of symphony is qualified by "may," so we can't draw any conclusions there.

(A)If they hadn't upped the amount, the competition to get the comm equipment in would be even more intense.(B)Correct. It would only help ease repression if it's used by people who are not the government, so this is an important assumption
(C)Whether or not the legislators like the argument has nothing to do with the logic of the people making it.
(D)They don't say theirs is the most effective, only that it would limit repression. Maybe there's something else even more effective than communications (weapons?), but it does not affect the validity of the statement that comm equipment would help.
(E)This would strengthen the argument, but it is not an underlying assumption.

Question type: Inference
Facts: Some people say that being hierarchical completely defines an organization. Bureaucratic orgs are all hierarchical. The PWD is bureaucratic [and thus hierarchical], but it is different than most other bureaucratic [and thus hierarchical] orgs.

(A)We don't know what the PWD does operate like, only that it's different from most.
(B)Faulty backwards logic.
(C)Again, backwards logic. Maybe we can conclude, maybe not. It's unclear(D)Correct. Since the PWD is hierarchical and bureaucratic and not like other hierarchical and bureaucratic orgs, some hierarchical ones (ie the PWD) must be different.
(E)We already know that bureaucratic orgs are hierarchical, so this is clearly false.

(A)The stat is 90% of insomniacs drink coffee, not the other way around. We don't have any percentages on people who drink coffee.
(B)We don't even need other causes, since not even a single valid cause is presented.(C)Correct. We don't know about coffee causing insomnia at all. Maybe insomniacs drink coffee because they're tired.
(D)Tom is not part of the class of individuals in the statistic, so this is a moot point.
(E)The "always" is too strong, especially since we're we have a number that does not equal 100.

(A)Accuracy would seem to support the point about people being confused, but that's misleading. The confusion in question is due to volume of information, not questionable validity. Modern readers and writers could be overwhelmed by large volume of accurate information, which would not cause mental self-reliance.
(B)The folklorist does not say that modern communication is inefficient.
(C)This topic is off topic.(D)Correct. This is basically a more convincing paraphrase of the last sentence.
(E)The folklorist implies that oral tradition values the useful and relevant; useful and relevant things could be unclear.

Question type: Flaw
Argument: We should not ask about hobbies because enthusiasm shown for hobbies might indicated lack of dedication to work, even though some people say enthusiasm might carry over to the job. Also, this is an except question, so the wrong answers are ALL flaws, ie reasons we SHOULD ask about hobbies.

(A)Since long-term commitments is good for jobs, asking about hobbies is in order.(B)Correct. Since a hobby probably gives applicants a boost, fake hobbies make candidates seem deceptively better than they are. We should avoid the issue and not ask. This strengthens the argument and is thus NOT a flaw.
(C)Honest responses are good, so we should ask about hobbies.
(D)Organizational skills are good, so we should ask about hobbies.
(E)Better choices are good, so...you get the point.

Question type: Parallel Diagram the argument: Mostdreams don't come true, so a few positive ones don't mean you're psychic. The majority of dreams support NOT being psychic, even if a few examples provide evidence you are.

(A)The question looks at a body of incidences (all the dreams of a person) and shows that the negative events are in the majority. There is no body of evidence ("more subjects needed") for this answer choice.
(B)This says many not most. Pay attention to qualifiers!
(C)Again, many.(D)Correct. Mostpeople don't die of aspirin, so even a few deaths don't mean aspiring is deadly.
(E)Significant number is not most.

READ A politician introduces a government tax policy. He is proposing a sin tax.

ANALYZE The passage is short enough to apply to each choice directly. (A) Incorrect. We know sugar is bad for your health but the tax regime proposed here is to raise revenue to pay for the health costs arising from consuming sugar. In fact, people and the government may benefit from increased consumption of sugar products if the negative impact of sugar is offset by the better health care paid by the tax.

(B) Incorrect. The study shows that the tax would not have an effect on the consumption of the pain reliever. The principle requires the tax discouraging the consumption of an undesirable product.

(C) Correct. The tax on the pesticide achieves what it is intended- to discourage the continued use.

(D) Incorrect. This is an opposite of the tax regime proposed by the politician. Tax is not raised to prevent decreased consumption.